Is the "War on Terror" changing us?

[chill]

War on Terror or War on Terrorists. Which is it that you are fighting? It is a huge fallacy to assume that by getting rid of terrorists you get rid of "terror". Terrorism is an ideology; terrorists merely its vehicle. I don't see how you can defeat Terror by killing and bombing people up. You need to get your reasons right; is the war in Iraq to defeat terrorism or is it to take revenge on terrorists? The toppling of governments, of regimes has little effect on terrorism. It strengthens it, rather.

[PsyCho]

Killing civilians on accident doesn't make you a terrorist. Killing civilians because they're in the way doesn't make you a terrorist. Killing soliders doesn't make you a terrorist. All of these things may make you a lousy person, or the enemy, or a bad shot, but not a terrorist.

TheFaithfulStone

 

At what point does collateral damage become terrorism? How many civilians are allowed to be in the way? Does targeting strategic locations such as airports or water-works that are run by civilian workers make you a terrorist? Does targeting military centres make you a terrorist?

 

I agree, delibrate targeting of civilians because they are civilians constitutes terrorism, but with that agreed definition and your statement above can you now explain 9/11 to me (I realise this could be a very sticky subject, and wish to approach with great care. Correct me if I'm wrong but were the targets not strategic in nature? Would that not make the perputators enemy combatants/soldiers, or merely "the enemy"? Had they flown it into Trump world tower or Lake Point Tower then that would have fulfilled your definition above)

 

I'm not an apologist, or a defender of these attacks; I'm merely trying to demonstrate how the language we use can both be evocative and misinterpreted, or interpreted depending on your viewpoint; call it a thought experiment. We've already had 2 different definitions from 2 different people.

 

My worry is that "terrorism" is/has becoming synonymous with muslim/islam in many peoples mind as demonstrated by multiple free association experiments. This is certainly not a good or healthy state of affairs.

when referring to the current problems the definition of "terrorist" is to create terror among a populace, that will not bend to a particular view.

jackson

Okay, the word here is "terror"; what is your definition of that? When is a populace in a state of "terror"?

 

in this case; to convert to Islam and denounce your current religious beliefs, or be killed. no one, including me says all Muslims agree, but if they do not, they become part of the group which is to be terrorized.

jackson

 

Paintbrushes again....

 

my logic says if the terrorist show signs of victory most with that current philosophy will celebrate regardless of what the pacifist think.

jackson

 

Expand on this, I don't really understand what your trying to say :eek_big:

 

My preferred definition of the word terrorist is as follows:

 

 

Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

[sebbysteiny]

Well, you brought it up.

 

You don't get negreps for having unpopular opinions, you get negreps for making outrageous universal statements without any support.

 

You don't get negreps for doing it once.

 

TFS

 

That's right. Reread what you wrote.

 

Now find me the section where you asked for support clearly and obviously and I clearly and obviously declined to give you that support?

 

You will then find that you abused the neg rep. :eek_big:

 

I don't care though. Bring my rep down to 0 if you must.

 

At what point does collateral damage become terrorism?

Never. It becomes a war crime when attempts to minimise it are not made (such attempts not including cancelling the military opperation). It becomes terror if collateral damage is deliberately maximised FOR AND ONLY FOR the purpose of inciting fear amongst the people to further a political cause of some kind.

 

1 million dead in collateral damage from, say, a war is not terror and is not even a war crime (if minimising attempts were made).

 

1 person dead by suicide bombing on a bus is.

 

How many civilians are allowed to be in the way?

 

Infinite.

 

Lets look at this new Palestinian tactic of rushing their civilians to the houses of known militants in large numbers. The Palestinians have committed a war crime (the use of human shields), and Israel would be perfectly within her rights to blow up the house regardless of 'how many arein the way'. But political concerns, and particularly domestic political concerns, rightfully stop Israel from doing this.

 

Does targeting strategic locations such as airports or water-works that are run by civilian workers make you a terrorist?

 

Not once war is, or is about to be, declared.

 

Does targeting military centres make you a terrorist?

 

A much harder question that I have only recently found a satisfactory answer to.

 

No, not alone. If you are targetting the military centres to help your effort to route that army on the battlefield, then no. If you are targetting for no such military purpose, but are intending to create fear and send a political message, then yes.

 

I agree, delibrate targeting of civilians because they are civilians constitutes terrorism

 

No it does not. It constitutes a war crime, but that war crime is not necessarily terror. It is the disproportionate use of force as well as other war crimes. It can ALSO be terror if and only if the primary aim of the commander who orderedthe attack was to spread fear to send a political message to further a political goal.

 

The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators.

 

Note TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY OR SYMBOLIC TARGETS. People who die from a bomb aimed at a tank are neither. Nor is the intention to be a message generator.

[sebbysteiny]

people have asked for evidence on Arab hate that can not be dismissed as the politically correct small minority.

 

My evidence will come in three main catogaries. 1) the severity of the hate given by most Arab regimes. 2) Evidence of widespread acceptance of that hate.

 

I present

 

Exhibit A

 

lgf: The Real Ahmadinejad

 

A video taken from iranian TV.

 

What it the evidence shows beyond all doubt.

 

1) The very top of the leadership tell their people that America and England are 'Satin'. They do so with the use of a hate speach.

 

2) The Iranian president tells the people to shout 'death to Israel'.

 

3) On queue, thousands, possibly 10s of thousands shout 'death to israel'.

 

Other evidence: I have seen worse footage but was unable to find it. A similar crowd was shouting "death to America". I'm hoping this will be accepted without requiring me to track down the exact video, which has been removed from google video.

 

4) The Iranian news agencies have approved the content of the hate speech. This proves further support from the government which runs the media.

 

What the evidence shows TO THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES.

 

This requires knowledge and understanding of statistics by small sample.

 

Basically, if you take a completely random sample of 6 people and find them all to be above 5 feet tall, you can be surprisingly sure that the average height of the human population is more than 5 feet. But you can't conclude that nobody is less than 5 feet tall.

 

The size of the crowd chanting 'death to israel, [death to America]' is enormous. The size compares to many anti-war demonstrations in Europe. it seems more likely than not, therefore, that the popularity of the extremism contained in the phrase 'death to israel, death to America' (which have not yet demonstrated) is as widespread in iran as anti war sypathies are in Europe. Thus the shear size of the crowd PROVIDES GOOD EVIDENCE for widespread agreement with the extreme messages contained within the phrase 'death to America, death to Israel'.

 

 

The main element of this exhibit is the size of extremist crowds and mobs.

 

The content of the hate that proves beyond reasonable doubt incitement to genocide will come later.

 

I present

exhibit 2

 

The shocking statistic that a majority of Muslims world wide believe 9/11 was done by jews, israel or America, not OBL.

 

This demonstrates beyond doubt that hate propaganda specifically relating to 9/11 is extremely widely accepted within ALL Muslim societies.

 

Since there is no reason to suppose that there is anything unique about the accusations of hate contained within that sentence, it suggests to the balance of probabilities, that OTHER GOVERNMENT INSITED HATE IS ALSO EQUALLY WELL DISTRIBUTED. In other words, this is evidence that Muslim culture readily accepts hate from their governments on a large scale incompatible with political correctness.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Firstly - Little Green Footballs is NOT an unbiased source.

 

But that's not the point. There were thousands upon thousands of people at the Nuremburg Rallies. Are all Germans Nazi's?

 

At one time Woodrow Wilson regretted that the film "Birth of A Nation" was "so terribly true." Are all American's racist Kluckers? (Actually, an apocryphal story, but the point stands.)

 

There were a lot of people in LA who stole televisions during the 1992 Riots. Are all people from LA theives?

 

A sample size of six from several billion is NOT large enough. Especially when you "load the sample." You think that the Iranian government lets dissenters into the anti-Israel rallies? Not even the United States does that! If you took a sample of everybody at a George W. Bush speech you could probably conclude from the sample that we all want to invade Iran, Syria, and a couple of other countries full of brown people.

 

If you took a sample from everybody at DNC meeting (or as I like to call it - a "Blame America First Book Burning and Roasted Baby-B-Q") you'd find that everybody things George W. Bush hides a forked tail down his pants leg, and that Jerry Falwell is the anti-Christ!

 

Lies, damn lies and statistics, right?

 

TFS

[PsyCho]

Not much time to reply in full, but on the topic of definitions of terrorism:

 

Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

 

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

 

Also:

Basically, if you take a completely random sample of 6 people and find them all to be above 5 feet tall, you can be surprisingly sure that the average height of the human population is more than 5 feet. But you can't conclude that nobody is less than 5 feet tall.

Sebbysteiny

 

Sure, but if you happen to select your random sample from a basketball convention; you wouldn't be surprised that all your group happens to be above 5ft. Equally if you were looking for news articles on extremist activities and moderate activies (for want of a better phrase), there may just be a tad of reporting bias and selection bias... All your examples come from Iran, bit like shooting fish in a barrel that one.

 

I think I've mentioned before about considering these examples in regard to social and political boundries. One countries interpretation of scripture and political structure may just be a tad different from another (ref Secularism vs. Legalism).

 

Further examples of Muslim democracies:

 

* Albania (Europe) (70% Muslim)

* Algeria (North Africa) (99%)

* Bangladesh (South Asia) (83%)

* Comoros (South eastern Africa) (98%)

* Indonesia (South-East Asia) (88%)

* Kyrgyzstan (Central Asia) (75%)

* Lebanon (Middle-East) (59.7%)

* Malaysia (South-East Asia)

* Mali (West Africa) (90%)

* Morocco (North Africa) (98.7%)

* Niger (West Africa) (80%)

* Senegal (West Africa) (94%)

* Sierra Leone (West Africa) (60%)

* Turkey (Europe / Asia) (99.8%)

* Yemen (Arabian peninsula - Asia) (+90%)

[sebbysteiny]

PsyCho,

 

I do believe you are missing the point.

 

There may be quirks in the statistics. But it does not follow that the conclusions are wrong. just ask, what do they show/ suggest. Rather than negatively finding errors, just say what it suggests to you.

 

The crowds are not all from Iran. I just remember the clip and tried to locate it. Sadly, the clip I found was the closest to it.

 

Exhibit 2 occurs in almost EVERY country's Muslim population.

 

Future exhibits will be elsewhere.

[InfiniteNow]

The main element of this exhibit is the size of extremist crowds and mobs.

Maybe they were providing free falafals that day? :shrug:

 

The content of the hate that proves beyond reasonable doubt incitement to genocide will come later.

You are expressing the same magnitude of hate right here that you blame them for expressing. The target is different, but the source the same. The world is a mirror...

 

 

The shocking statistic that a majority of Muslims world wide believe 9/11 was done by jews, israel or America, not OBL.

I will not ask you for a link to Google video of people chanting death to america, but I WILL ASK YOU FOR A LINK to support the above.

 

That's baseless, and if such a statistic exists you can bet their research and sampling methods were significantly flawed.

 

This demonstrates beyond doubt that hate propaganda specifically relating to 9/11 is extremely widely accepted within ALL Muslim societies.

Nope, sorry... try again. This demonstrates beyond doubt the ability of someone with a predetermined notion to bend stimuli to fit their expectations. There is acceptance among a lot of people of this propaganda, but your claim that it's "extremely widely accepted with ALL Muslim societies" is a beyond fallacious, and downright racist.

 

In other words, this is evidence that Muslim culture readily accepts hate from their governments on a large scale incompatible with political correctness.

 

I'm sorry you are so sad and angry. It's really not healthy... but stop blaming groups of people as if it were the truth. You speak of undesirables... maybe you should incorporate the term "Untermensch" into your vocabulary...

[sebbysteiny]

QUOTE=TFS]Firstly - Little Green Footballs is NOT an unbiased source.

 

But that's not the point.

Quite right. That's not the point. The video recorded straight from iranian TV may have been stored in the archives of a bias organisation but it is STILL 100% reliable evidence.

 

There were thousands upon thousands of people at the Nuremburg Rallies. Are all Germans Nazi's?

No. But A VERY LARGE %AGE [>40% at least] WERE.

 

There were a lot of people in LA who stole televisions during the 1992 Riots. Are all people from LA theives?

 

I HAVE NEVER SAID ALL MUSLIMS ARE EXTREME. I HAVE SAID THAT ALMOST ALL MUSLIM CULTURES HAVE A LARGE %AGE OF THEIR PEOPLE THAT HAVE ACCEPTED AT LEAST SOME FORM OF HATE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST.

 

Stop strawmanning me.

 

A sample size of six from several billion is NOT large enough. Especially when you "load the sample." You think that the Iranian government lets dissenters into the anti-Israel rallies?

Nope. Having said that, do you think that the anti war rallies in Europe contained many pro war supporters?

 

It is NOT the actions of the crowd that is important: It's its size. I say you cannot get a crowd that big unless their beliefs are WIDESPREAD in (at least) Iranian society.

 

If you took a sample of everybody at a George W. Bush speech you could probably conclude from the sample that we all want to invade Iran, Syria, and a couple of other countries full of brown people.

 

Again you have made a mistake. Bush draw crowd after crowd supporting the Iraq war. The conclusion IS NOT that all America supports the war. The correct statistical conclusion based on the size and frequency of the crowds is that the Iraq war has a large %age support (<<10%). Oh wait .... it does.

 

I am saying the statistics suggests that the support for genocidal extremism in Iraq is at least similar in size to the support for the Iraq war in America. That is NOT the politically correct small minority.

 

If you took a sample from everybody at DNC meeting (or as I like to call it - a "Blame America First Book Burning and Roasted Baby-B-Q") you'd find that everybody things George W. Bush hides a forked tail down his pants leg, and that Jerry Falwell is the anti-Christ!

 

Erm no you wouldn't. You would get a lot of people who dislike George Bush. The important thing is not what is said but the SIZE of the crowd.

 

I intend to list many more exhibits. But each takes time to find and explain.

Maybe they were providing free falafals that day? :shrug:

 

Is that really the BEST you can do? Almost 10 thousand people chanting 'death to America, death to Israel' in unison and you say 'a bribe'.

 

How about another theory, wild though it is. Perhaps they want the destruction of America and Israel along with the genocide of all their citizens? :shrug:

 

The shocking statistic that a majority of Muslims world wide believe 9/11 was done by jews, israel or America, not OBL.

I will not ask you for a link to Google video of people chanting death to america, but I WILL ASK YOU FOR A LINK to support the above.

 

That's baseless, and if such a statistic exists you can bet their research and sampling methods were significantly flawed.

 

If such a statistic exists and the sampling methods were perfect, would you change your views? Seriously, would you? Evidence is only useful to those prepared to actually LOOK.

 

The reason I did not give the link is because I already did that on another thread and IT ALREADY CAME UP ON THIS THREAD.

 

I can't immediately find the link but I'm some some people on this thread can help me by confirming its existance.

 

If not, I will find it next post.

 

But yes, I admit, I do find hate from Islamic governement repugnant and I am extremely alarmed at how widespread it is.

[Boerseun]

Sebby...

 

I'm from a country that until a couple 'o years ago, was seen as the ******* of the world. My nation (Afrikaners) practiced racist politics against the biggest component of the rest of South Africa. So what, you ask.

 

Hang on.

 

Years ago, in the heyday of Apartheid (middle '80s), we were strolling around my hometown of Newcastle in Natal Province. So we got to the middle of town, and were met by a host of camera crews, both local and international. Some twit told them that there was going to be a big clash between the local blacks, and the white police force. So we, being the good rubber-neckers we are, hung around for a bit to see what's cooking. And lo and behold, nothing happened. There was no protest march, there was no cops rubber-bulleting the masses, nothing. And the international journalists were getting all pissed off because they travelled all the way from Johannesburg for some blood-and-gore footage.

 

So what happened?

 

Nothing.

 

At least, not until a foreign journo slipped a crew of about ten-fifteen black kids a R50 note each to start breaking shop windows.

 

So they did.

 

They all pocketed their R50s, and picked up bricks and stones and rocks and branches and went ballistic on the main road's shop windows.

 

Obviously, about five minutes later, the cops were there, and they started breaking the crowd apart and arrested a few of them for property damage. Of course, the camera crews were rolling film, too far away to record what the cops were arresting the guys for. And that night, all over the world, footage was shown of how the local blacks in the rural town of Newcastle in Natal Province in the Republic of South Africa have had enough of the viscious policies of Apartheid, and went head-on with the cops. Meantime, their only incentive was a cracking fresh R50 note in the pocket.

 

Great.

 

What does it tell you?

 

Not much. But it does tell you one thing, though. If you base your personal opinion of any conflict in the world solely upon what popular media tells you, then you are a sadly misinformed and gullible idiot. Popular media tells you what they want you to hear, they tell you exactly what they believe the common expectation of conflicts should be. And the only people to show the world how the Muslims hate the West is the popular media themselves. I have quite a few Muslim friends who are so far removed from what the popular media would like you to believe a Muslim is, that its not even funny.

 

You are bigoted in your statement, and seriously misinformed.

 

Reading a lot doesn't help. You have to read widely, as well. The popular media is by no means a barometer of the truth. The popular media is only a reflection of the beliefs and opinions of a very limited number of people with enough investment in the industry to be able to sway the electorate's opinions about issues, reflected in the likes of your posts above.

 

When it comes to the Truth, you should not only be wary of the source, but also of the intentions of those proclaiming to spout it. And you can quote me on that.

[jackson33]

Boer; first- the discussion is not directed to or at Muslims. second- the media most westerners take notice of is the Muslim media. 3- the plight of whats left of So. Africa is another story and the seen results, extremely questionable. 4- its been my view, most every one calling another a bigot is generally the bigot.

 

1- my views are based on Islamic Law, as it pertains to people. people to me include, women, Catholics, Jewish, atheist and in fact all non-Islamics. these people under "Islamic Law", where practiced have no rights.

 

1A- as socialism is in degrees, so are Islamic societies tolerant of others. tolerance of government (anti socialism) and tolerance of others do not have similarity. i might suggest you take your wife to the nearest Mask. you may be allowed in, but i can give you a media view to how your wife will be handled and this without regards to you or with your permission.

 

2- we accept as truths, the words of middle east media, since its generally the view of Religious Government leaders. the media could not be their media if the views differ from whats written.

 

3- another subject.

 

4-self explanitory...

[jackson33]

Popularity doesn't make something right. While the points above about the current sociopolitical climate in the US may have validity, it in no way means that this ideology is what will help us move forward as a society. We all share this planet, and it's time for some serious revision of our biases.

 

do you really feel the social ideas based the US form of government and those based on Islamic law could ever exist as equals under one law. can you read the US Constitution and see all thats given priority over government control and/or religious dictate and yet not understand the fundamental differences. bias, is not an issue. realistic review is the problem.

 

no popular view does not make everything right. here the majority feel abortion is wrong, drug enforcement over done, illegal entry wrong and many other things. the very idea of public debate on these subjects is what was intended by our founders and the idea of contesting the Koran, never thought of by those founders.

[sebbysteiny]

HOW TO INTERPRET MY EVIDENCE.

 

Each exhibit, as with any statistical sample, on its own does not prove a picture. But when you start to combine all the exhibits I will post, a very clear and in my view unavoidable picture emerges.

 

So yes there are alternative explanations to each individual piece of evidence I post, but with each exhibit, the picture becomes much stronger.

 

What does it tell you?

 

Not much. But it does tell you one thing, though. If you base your personal opinion of any conflict in the world solely upon what popular media tells you, then you are a sadly misinformed and gullible idiot.

 

I agree. The European press is all but useless in explaining what is really happening. Reuters has even admitted it is deliberately pro-Palestinian out of fear for what would happen to its journalists were it to be more honest.

 

That is why I never rely on the media. I go straight to the source and if it is not said from the camel's mouth, I am not interested.

 

If you want to understand the Middle East Conflict, then you MUST add Palestinian Media Watch - Homepage to your reading. You must at least study the evidence presented in its contents.

 

2 questions then arise.

 

1) Is it for real. The answer is a definate yes as I have seen that sight be confirmed as reliable by the BBC AND Channel 4 news. It's legitimate.

 

2) Are these isolated clips taken out of context or repeated on a dialy basis.

Again, I've seen enough examples to convince me it is not a 1 off.

 

When you see Yasser Arafat talking on television about how 12 year olds should fight tanks with stones and become shihads [child myrters] as that is the greatest symbol the Palestinians can show the outside world, I kind of feel sick inside.

 

Reading a lot doesn't help. You have to read widely, as well.

 

You are bigoted in your statement, and seriously misinformed.

 

I wish what I was saying was different. But when you have seen the amount of evidence that I have, you would not be so quick to dismiss a warning of a potential genocide by the Palestinians on Israelis as 'bigotted'. All genocides are caused by widespread hate and I believe the only thing stopping a genocide in the Middle East is the IDF.

 

But in my experience, people do not like facing uncomfortable truths, especially when the Palestinians look so cute and cuddly on Western televisions.

 

You might also like to check out Wikipedia's analysis of the Palestinian Israeli media conflict.

 

Infact, that, in that article, there is some insight for Exhibit 3.

 

But first,

Here is the link to exhibit 2. Did it end up mattering to you InfiniteNow?

 

Exhibit 3

 

The lynching of 2 Israel soldiers.

 

2 Israeli soldiers got lost in Ramallah. The Palestinians thought they were undercover soldiers. The police captured them. A large crowd formed outside the Police station and stormed it. They then beat the soldiers to death and threw their intestines into the crowd. The crowd, consisting of men, women and children, with blood oozing everywhere, continued to beat the soldiers leaving nothing but butcher meat all to the cries of 'allah akbah'.

 

The points to note are:

 

1) what would you do if an enemy soldier was discovered in your country assuming you are a normal person? Without doubt I say you would keep them as a prisoner of war and keep them under the geneva conventions. Even if you are from a failed state, you would at least keep them alive in a secret location. What happened? One of the most discusting frenzy of hate that has ever been witnessed. People were dancing for joy in the blood of those soldiers.

 

2) The shear SIZE of the crowd. Ramallah is not considered a Hamas stronghold. Yet the apparent moderates still commit savage acts of butchery, again, thanking 'allah' for giving them the opportunity to slaughter Jews.

 

This is yet another example of large crowds of hate ..... now in a completely different place. How many examples of large crowds in a Frenzy of hate does one need to see to make the conclusion that violent radical hate filled Islam is far more widespread in the Middle East than simply in a small minority?

 

Now if an Israel Jew gets lost in Ramallah, it seems clear to me that you would be, in the very least, killed. If you were not killed, you would probably be lynched. Anybody who disagrees 'oh no, the Palestinians are so so peaceful, it's just a small number of extremists, the rest are all really cudly', would you care to volenteer to dress in typical western clothing, wear a Kippar (a clear symbol of Jeudism) and a star of david and hold an Israel passport your pocket so that those who capture you can observe your status. Perhaps you could use an Israel number plated car to park. Then, all you need to do is take a stroll down the central street of Ramallah, buy a falafal a shwarma and some cocacola and then leave.

 

3) The reaction of the masses. No criticisms by the masses were made. No demands of justice by the perpertrators were made. No arrests of the perpertrators were made. No attempts to stop the perpertators were made.

 

The Palestinian police instead only did one thing, confirmed by the above Wikipedia article. They tried to confiscate all recordings of the event. However, one brave Italian journalist smuggled out the film and now we all know about it. The result was that the PA was furious with the Italian media station and cut off all access. That media station had to issue a public appology to the PA and a letter of complete support for the Palestinian cause before access was resumed. The journalist involved was fired.

 

Sometimes silence is the strongest evidence there is. Either the so called 'moderate 'Palestinians, including their leaders, 1) were intimidated into slilence, 2) were appathetic to this disgusting slaughter, or even worse, 3) were giving it their implicit support. 2 and 3 are obviously bad. 1 however provides evidence for just how powerful and probably numerous the extreme / conservative Palestinian Muslims really are. I mean, they CONTROL society. Again, who had that power other than the 'moderate' Fatah at that time?

 

Also, this is evidence suggesting the Palestinian leadership feels they can play the West for fools by covering up things that are that disgusting.

 

This double speak will become in increasingly familiar theme in my later exhibits.

 

The lynching provides in my view extremely strong evidence, to the balance of probabilities, that the extremely repugnant hate broadcast by the leaders all over the Middle East IS BEING ABSORBED by a large %age (>>10%) of the population.

 

Again, I point out my opinion that the only thing stopping the Palestinians from committing genocide against the Israeli jews is the IDF.

 

Exhibit 4 is going to be (if I can find it again) a poll demonstrating that almost half of the Palestinians in 2002 or something, supported suicide bombings and the other half criticised it ONLY BECAUSE it was counter productive AND NOT because it was a crime against humanity.

 

Exhibit 5 is going to be the evidence of huge crowds of Arabs all over the Middle East dancing in the streets for joy on hearing of 9/11. Of course, there was a virgil in Iran that I will also mention. I have never said they are all bad.

 

Then, I think I will move onto exhibits showing clearly how disgusting and vile the hate spread by Palestinian and other Arab governments really is, pointing out that the actions of many in the Arab world correlate almost perfectly with that hate which they are encourged to think.

 

Is this enough evidence for you guys?

 

Tune in next time.

[InfiniteNow]

That there is hate in the world needs no further evidence than the posts in this very thread. If only so much energy and effort were spent finding the solution as opposed to building a case for the problem...

[CraigD]

The shocking statistic that a majority of Muslims world wide believe 9/11 was done by jews, israel or America, not OBL.

I will not ask you for a link to Google video of people chanting death to america, but I WILL ASK YOU FOR A LINK to support the above.

 

That's baseless, and if such a statistic exists you can bet their research and sampling methods were significantly flawed.

Much as I’m appalled by these survey results, I must acknowledge that they are real. The “Public Opinion Polls in the Muslim World” section of this 9-11 Commission hearing record contains a reasonable synopses of 3 often-cited polls on this subject.

 

It’s important to note that these surveys were commissioned by and intended for use of the press, not scientific study, and contained ambiguous language that a more sound survey would not – for example, the 11/2001 BBC survey asks “"From what you have seen or heard, do you think the USA are justified in blaming Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda Group for the attacks in America on September 11th?" (to which 67% of 500 British Musilims replied “unjustified”), not a more precise question such as “do you believe the attacks were made by Muslims?” From the questions asked, it’s difficult to determine if respondents meant “Osama bin Laden doesn’t control Al Qaeda”, “Al Qaeda didn’t do it”, or “Al Queda did it, but the US should heeded threats that they were going to, so are not justified in blaming them”.

 

It’s also important to note that there are dramatic differences in responses to these survey questions when asked of Muslims in different countries. For example ‘More than 25% of those in Indonesia (88% Muslim ), Pakistan (97% Muslim ), and Mali (90% Muslim ) felt "this kind of violence" [the 9-11 attacks] was "often justified" or "sometimes justified"’ , while ‘an astonishing 73% of those in Lebanon (70% Muslim ) felt "this kind of violence" was "often justified" or "sometimes justified"’.

Bush draw crowd after crowd supporting the Iraq war. The conclusion IS NOT that all America supports the war. The correct statistical conclusion based on the size and frequency of the crowds is that the Iraq war has a large %age support (<<10%).

Speaking as a licensed statistician, this is not a “correct statistical conclusion”! Because the crowds that politicians such as George W. Bush speak before are almost always selected in advance to assure that they contain only supporters, they are not a valid random sample of the whole national population, and can only be used in a very limited way to draw statistical inferences. For example, if all of 3,000 people in such an audience of a speech by G.W.Bush report that they support continuing or escalating the Iraq war, and the population of the US is 300,000,000, the only inference that can be drawn is that at least 3,000 of 300,000,000, or 0.001%, of the US supports the Iraq war. Though statistically correct, such a small minimum value is of little use in understanding the opinions of US citizens concerning the Iraq war.

 

I find it interesting that current approval for the Iraq war is about 15-30% (source: wikipedia article “American popular opinion on the 2003 invasion of Iraq“), a rate similar to the 36% American approval rate for the Vietnam war measured in 1973, and also similar to the approximately 25% of polled Muslims worldwide who consider terrorist attacks to be justified. It’s my tentative hypothesis that, at any time in recent history, regardless of its perceived prospects of success, about 25% of the people in any nation favor forceful means of resolving perceived serious problems.

[sebbysteiny]

If only so much energy and effort were spent finding the solution as opposed to building a case for the problem...

 

Sadly, if I am right, which I strongly believe I am, then the Palestinians are incapable of peace. They will play peace, but in the 11th hour, just like they did at camp David, they will find an excuse to get back to killing. Unless of course, they can get the 'right of return' for anybody with a single grandparent or great grandparent of one of the original Palestinian refugees. In that case, they can take control of the IDF by simply voting in Israeli elections leaving both Israel as a Jewish state destroyed and at the very least, the Jews living as an oppressed minority under Palestinian rule, and more disturbingly, leaving the coast completely clear for genocide.

 

The only solution is to delegitimise the Palestinian cause in the West to show it for what it is. Then, when the Palestinians realise that their maniacal goals will never be accumplished, they may lose all hope 'of achieving their national rights' and realise that peace by co-existance living together in two states is their only route to ending their self inflicted misery.

 

If Abbas takes control of the Palestinian Authority and does not die of natural causes, then perhaps this bleak assessment may change.

 

Bush draw crowd after crowd supporting the Iraq war. The conclusion IS NOT that all America supports the war. The correct statistical conclusion based on the size and frequency of the crowds is that the Iraq war has a large %age support (<<10%).

 

Speaking as a licensed statistician, this is not a “correct statistical conclusion”!

 

You have to remember that at the time of those crowds, support for the war was a lot higher.

 

only inference that can be drawn is that at least 3,000 of 300,000,000, or 0.001%, of the US supports the Iraq war.

 

Really? I agree that is all it proves beyond all doubt. But looking at the balance of probabilities, it is almost completely untenable that there can be no more supporters.

 

The assumptions behind the idea that, to the balance of probabilities, only 3000 supports can be safely assumed are extremely dodgy.

 

1) That Bush has contacted and sived out every single memeber of the country and brought them ALL there.

 

2) That people from distances far away would be willing to travel so far to help out a president.

 

3) That people are prepared to pay for the honour of 2, or that the Republicans are prepared to pay for the mediocer publicity stunt.

 

4) That there was only one such crowd and any further pro Iraq crowds must contain the same people.

 

5) That everybody with even a slight support for the war turned up.

 

6) need I go on? The logistics are rediculous.

 

Surely you must agree that the existance of a crowd of 3000 in a small town proves to the balance of probabilities support for the Iraqi war numbering far more than 3000 in that area.

 

I would say that the people who turned up are largely limited to just the towns in the local area of that meeting.

 

This makes a data point which, if repeated over the whole country, shows a sizable support for the Iraq war [>>10 %]. All this because of one crowd of 3000.

 

I agree it's rough and ready and it's only one town. But if that is the only data point we have, then, to the balance of probabilities, it DOES, albeit not rigorusly, support my conclusion.

 

Though statistically correct, such a small minimum value is of little use in understanding the opinions of US citizens concerning the Iraq war.

The MINIMUM value is not of interest. What is of interest is the the most likely value. What is MOST LIKELY to be going on?

 

It’s my tentative hypothesis that, at any time in recent history, regardless of its perceived prospects of success, about 25% of the people in any nation favor forceful means of resolving perceived serious problems.

 

Lol, nice hypothesis. I like where you are coming from. So good, that I don't want to be the one to shatter it. Anybody else want the honours?

[InfiniteNow]

Conclusions drawn from false premises are themselves false. You are building structures in sand sebbysteiny, and the passage of time will topple the ideology you are so forcefully trying to support.